I've seen people saying that a lot lately but she was talking about way more than just ACA so IMO it's hard to gather any real insight wrt a specific case from her quote:

I agree. SCOTUS always holds its most divisive/most important/most controversial cases until the end of the term, if for no other reason than because they want to get the opinions in the best form possible, which takes time. I read her comments as basically confirming that that's happened again this year, which is the least surprising thing ever.

I'm guessing the courts will find Obamacare unconstitutional.

Was reading that some on the left are preparing for that eventuality. Much as FDR did when the courts ruled against his ideas, the President might be preparing for further attacks agains the Supreme court in order to rally his base.

"Will Obama Try to Blow Up the Court?"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...ourt-decision/

That's a pretty terrible article. Going on TV and saying "The Supreme Court is wrong!" over and over again is hardly "blowing up the Court." It's also not even a little bit comparable to FDR's court-packing plan. It's also no different than what every pro-life politician has been doing for 40 years.

And even so, the answer to the question posed in the title is "no." Attacking the integrity of the Court is not a good way to pick up independent votes, and the President knows this, as he is not a stupid person.

Obama's response if it is ruled unconstitutional is obvious. He will just say that a solution is still needed and that the Republicans have no ideas, all they do is obstruct. He might talk up the single payer model that the base wants and will just fold a lot of the ideas of Obamacare that are popular (which is basically all of it) into single payer and release the document to the press.

AFAIK he's never advocated single payer, or even a public option, which is why so many on the left do not like the law as written.

SUCH A PARTISAN SUPREME COURT WITH THESE FIVE-FOUR RULINGS. RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!

Justice Sotomayor announced the second opinion of the day, in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-551.pdf

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined

Wait, what? You mean these aren't political hacks who rule based on blue and red? Nahhh. Ruins our narrative.

I thought single payer and public option are the same thing, am I wrong?

Zero chance Obama brings up single payer. lol phil

eta: and yes, you're wrong. Single payer is essentially the nhs system, the public option would have created a government funded insurance plan but not completely end private medical care or insurance.

There are plenty of minor cases like this one that are over nonpartisan issues where there are weird majority coalitions. That has nothing to do with the fact that the Republican nominees fairly consistently vote in favor of big business and churches and against criminal suspects and abortion and drug-users and what-have-you, and the Democratic nominees fairly consistently vote the other way when the partisan cases come along. That's what people mean when they call the justices "political hacks," and it's entirely fair.

This. Much better politically to attack the ~10% approval rating Congress. Running against the Supreme Court is tanamount to disaster imo.

You are being intellectually dishonest.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by 'later arbitrary and disparate treatment,' the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.

Mayo. I agree with most of your post. I just want the lurkers and non-political forum members to realize that not all Supreme Court decisions are 5-4 (R vs. D + wildcard Kennedy). I also think it's lol that people think that these justices that sit for life are political hacks. It's quite obvious that when they are vetted by the sitting President their rulings on lower courts are reviewed and the President picks a candidate who is more in line with their own views. Nevertheless, I doubt any of the justices are thinking during deliberations, "Well I need to rule whatever way helps Obama and/or the insurance companies".

And YOU claiming that Bush v. Gore was a 7-2 vote is super intellectually dishonest. How was it 7-2 if there were four dissents? The 7-2 bit was concerning one specific recall procedure, whereas the overall ruling on whether or not to allow a recount in general was clearly 5-4. Oddly enough, the four most liberal justices voted in a way that would've helped Gore, and the five most conservative justices voted in a way that helped Bush. Weird coincidence, innit?

You internet newbs and your silly predictions.